finally finished reading the novel

a few minutes ago I finally finished reading the novel...it took me about 2 weeks to read the 466 pages (I think is a record for me). I REALLY loved to read it. it gave me all the details I wanted to know. it's the greatest book ever.

I could've read it a long time before, but I didn't know that the book I used to see standing in my friend's house was The Godfather. here in Brazil, The Godfather is known as "O Poderoso Chefão", something like "The Powerful Boss", and in the book it is just "O Chefão" ("The Boss"), so I never cared about it.

PS: someone has asked this before, but I will ask it again: Do you think is better to read he novel first, or watching the trilogy first and then reading it?

I don't know how the first option feels like, but I'm really satisfied for having watched the trilogy before. it made the novel so much easier to understand, since you already know the charachters and, in the case of GF, almost know them like your close friends. also, I think the film would be so much more affected if you knew how it would end than the book, since at least for me, the greatest thing about reading it is to know ALL the details about EVERYTHING, and not the climax of an impressive ending sequence, like in GF1.

well, I'm so happy with this book that I can't stop talking about it...

Hey, I'm glad you loved the book, Tony! Not surprised, either--it's a great book.
I can't answer your question objectively because I read the book before the movie was filmed, so I had no choice. I loved the book so much that I read it dozens and dozens of times. Then the movie was released--and it stimulated me to read the book many dozens more times.

Generally, I prefer to read the novel first, since the author can usually go into a lot more detail in a book that may take 6-8 hours to read than a screenwriter can in a film that runs only two. The additional backround provided in the book usually makes the film more interesting and understandable.

I also prefer seeing the film after reading the book, because, after all, it is the book that the film is based on, so it seems only fair to read the book first. And I'm always interested to see the interpretation on film of what I imagined in my mind as I was reading vs. the interpretation of the screenwriter and director.

I will add, though, that The Godfather I is one of the rare cases, IMO, when then film greatly surpasses the book on which it was based.

And like Turnbull, I read the book before the movie even came out.

I agree the film is much better, I saw the film first and found the book filled in lots of missing detail that was very interesting to discover.

TPM

I've read the book three times. It gets easier and easier to read each time. Although in my copy of the book, there's a whole bunch of type-o's, at least 50 of em, but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's an excellent book. Although it is not my favorite Puzo novel. That accolade would either have to go to The Fortunate Pilgrim or Fools Die.

In my opinion, you should watch the movie first, then read the book, because the book is always better than the movie and if you read the book first, you may find the movie disappointing, or lacking.

Yes, GF does capture the essence of the book spectacularly, but a lot of scenes, dialogue and supporting characters were given the ax in the movie version for time purposes.

I think if you watch the movie first, the book takes on a richer and more rewarding tone as you get more into the characters and the scenery.

I saw the movie before reading the book. I like the fact that the book fills in some of the gaps and deleted scenes of the movie. But I don't like the extra detail pertaining to Lucy, Nino, & Johnny.

The biggest negative about seeing the film first is that I have a difficult time imagining anyone else in each role. Then again, that's also a tribute to the actors who portrayed Puzo's characters. I wonder if Puzo had certain actors/actresses in mind when he was writing the novel...

I doubt it. Except for Brando, and possibly Duvall and Castellano, none of the major cast members were really very well known. Pacino was unheard of.

In an interview that was included in the 25th Anniversary VHS set (not sure if it was in the DVD set), Puzo said that he'd heard that Danny Thomas was so hot to play Vito Corleone that he was going to buy Paramount! Puzo said "I was disturbed by this" (probably understatement of the year!). He said he got Brando's address from his agent and wrote him about playing Vito. Puzo said he didn't expect a reply, but Brando did reply, said he was interested, but he'd have to wait until the director was announced. You know the story about how FFC had to fight the studio's objections to Brando.

"PS: someone has asked this before, but I will ask it again: Do you think is better to read he novel first, or watching the trilogy first and then reading it?"
I would have liked to have read the book first, but I didn't. If you read the book first you think of what the chars look like in your head, and makes the book more interesting. its better to read the book first. you think of the novel in your head, using your own pictures. but because I saw the movie first, when I was reading, I could hear the voices of the chars, especially tom hagen. I heard his voice first when he said, "the drug buisness will be bigger than any other buisness" or something close to that. that's when vito corleone is deciding wheter to support sollozo and his drug buisness.
also if you read the book, and the movie sucks, you wont have the bad movie in your head ruining things.
and al pacino was the perfect character for michael. when I was reading it showed why al pacino had to act as him.

Welcome, Antone, and thanks for posting a thoughtful question (yes, it has been asked before, but not as often as many). I believe it's better to read the novel first because the novel has a lot more detail that is helpful in appreciating the film even more than you would if you hadn't read the novel. The film is wonderful on its own, but watching it after reading the novel gives a better appreciation.

I read the novel first. (I was like 6 or 7) and it made a world of difference...

Well first of all I watched the movie then read the book. I think it would work well either way because they both capture the essence of the story. The movie, does tend to paint a very good picture of the story however.

Also Plaw, FFC in the same interview Turbull has mentioned kept sneaking Pacino in for the role of Michael. The studio originally wanted Caan to play Michael, but FFC persisted and got his way.